From some reading, I've noticed that sup, but \inf(\emptyset)=\max(S), given that \min(S) and \max(S) exist, where S is the universe in which one is working. Is there some inherent reasoning/proof as to why this is? It seems strange to me that an upper bound of a set would be smaller than a lower bound of the same set.
Answer
The supremum is defined to be the least upper bound. An upper bound for a set K is defined to be an element b such that for all k\in K, k\leq b. If K is empty, then the condition "for all k\in K, k\leq b" is true by vacuity (you have an implication of the form "if k is an element of the empty set, then \ltsomething happens\gt", and the antecedent is always false so the implication is always true).
Therefore, every element of S is an upper bound for \emptyset; since \sup(\emptyset) is the least upper bound, that means that \sup(\emptyset)=\min(upper bounds of \emptyset) = \min(S).
Similarly, the infimum is the greatest lower bound, and every element of S is a lower bound for \emptyset, so \inf(\emptyset) = \max(lower bounds of \emptyset) = \max(S).
Yes, it is somewhat counterintuitive that you have \sup(\emptyset)\leq\inf(\emptyset), but in fact the empty set is the only one for which you can have \sup(\emptyset)\lt \inf(\emptyset). The empty set often causes counterintuitive results.
No comments:
Post a Comment